Originally posted by Wolf But what both 2F-2001 and myself were referring to is collusion between McLaren and Williams teams after Ferrari was stranded in gravel at Jerez, where McLaren drivers 'rode shotgun' for JV to ensure he got enough points to win the title, and only on the last lap assumed the 1-2 finishing order. It's abominale in my book because rival teams settled on race result to ensure the driver of the 3rd team (as guilty as he was) didn't win the title. It is also worth noting that there was a follow-up to this when JV repaid McLaren drivers for services provided (off top of my head, can't remember when/where, my memory is as bad as ever- but he did let them through to return the favour)...

It was all winthin the once race - they only held back until the last corner when they took the lead. JV would have lost the championship if he'd finished fourth.

Personally I've never seen it as any worse than normal team orders. It was a mutually beneficial swap, and there was nothing to stop the other drivers ruining the party had they actually been quick enough on the day.

Originally posted by MrAerodynamicist It was all winthin the once race - they only held back until the last corner when they took the lead. JV would have lost the championship if he'd finished fourth.

Personally I've never seen it as any worse than normal team orders. It was a mutually beneficial swap, and there was nothing to stop the other drivers ruining the party had they actually been quick enough on the day.

Are You saying it would be OK if Coulthard (with previous expirience in such tactics and Ferrari engine in the back of his car) was to block Alonso in Brasil this year, because Ferrari and Torro Rosso teams have decided MS would be more worthy champion than Alonso?

To me team orders are an abomination, but when supposed rival teams engage in such antics it all becomes nothing more than WWF-like spectacle.

I always thought the McLaren-Williams "collusion" was to ensure that JVil won the title. Let's face it, had he dropped to too low a position due to the "accident" damage and given past history (and indeed the alleged punishment suffered by The Cheat consequently) there is no way the MaFIAt would have taken it off Ferrari.

Originally posted by Wolf
[B]Are You saying it would be OK if Coulthard (with previous expirience in such tactics and Ferrari engine in the back of his car) was to block Alonso in Brasil this year, because Ferrari and Torro Rosso teams have decided MS would be more worthy champion than Alonso?/B]

I'd rather it hadn't happened any more than Barrichello moving out the way in Austria. But I'd think it would be hypocritical to single it out. If drivers within a team can work together, and it's okay for teams to work together technically, then IMO it's only logical that drivers from different teams can work together for their mutual benefit. (Plus you could get in to quite a philosophical debate on the arbitrary nature of organisations). It only becomes a problem when it involves a high enough percent of the grid it goes from a handful of drivers trying to work together to overall race fixing.

Be better if none of it happened, but as long as everyone falls for the con that is the concept of championships, it's going to happen.

Originally posted by Doug Nye Whichever way one slices it -I trust the Schmacher era will remain unique in International motor racing history.

I trust that no other driver will survive within the 'sport' for so many years unchallenged by another of equally all-embracing ability, connections and team support.

And I trust that his records will never, ever, be broken.

Because by the time they are, a global majority will surely have become bored to tears, and will have taken their interest elsewhere...and major league motor racing in almost any recognisable form will have surely laid down...and died.

He has achieved something quite phenomenal - we have witnessed an extraordinary era of achievement - and for that he has a very special place.

But quite what it is - and where it is - or rather, where it should be placed... - I'm not yet sure.

I'm still in the thros of waxing nostalgic for the 66/67 GP seasons. There's time yet, I do hope, for me to wax nostalgic about Michael Schumacher, but by then I'll be in my 90s and probably won't even be able to understand "nostalgia".

Mr A. it's not singled out (but mind you, I don't know any other instance where anything similar happened on track- so it deserves being singled out), but reather to show the full picture. How could Austria be cheating, but Jerez not? How is MS cheat for having his teammate pull over, while Hakkinen smells as a fresh rose, yet he rode shotgun in Jerez (not to mention had Coulthard pull over for him), or JV who (re)introduced chop, or Button who said in interview with Damon Hill he'd do what MS did in Adelaide, &c.

Look at Briatore now- he's full of righteos wrath, one would think he's Samuel L. Jackson, with his pistol and Old Testament quotes, booming out Schumacher and FIA are cheats. Yet who was team manager of Benetton when they set the world ablaze (or to be more precise, only Herbert) with illegal refuelling rig, or when MS' car had illegal traction control which wasn't used in races?

Originally posted by Doug Nye But quite what it is - and where it is - or rather, where it should be placed... - I'm not yet sure.

I think the begining of an understanding of the Schumacher era at Ferrari can come from a Patrick Head quote after Enzo Ferrari died, as reported by Nigel Roebuck (IIRC) :

'But now, Ferrari will be managed!'

To me, what has been acheived at Ferrari during the 1996-2006 period is exactly that, intelligent management. For once, there were no (internal) politics. The drivers' roles were crystal clear. The opinion of the Italian press carried no weight. The lines of communication to the top were good, as there were no sycophants to blurr them. Everybody pulled in the same direction. Enzo Ferrari's wrath could no longer be felt by anyone.

Micheal Schumacher and his allies were able to achieve what John Surtees, Niki Lauda and their allies were ultimately unable to achieve.

Originally posted by FLB I think the begining of an understanding of the Schumacher era at Ferrari can come from a Patrick Head quote after Enzo Ferrari died, as reported by Nigel Roebuck (IIRC) :

'But now, Ferrari will be managed!'

To me, what has been acheived at Ferrari during the 1996-2006 period is exactly that, intelligent management. For once, there were no (internal) politics. The drivers' roles were crystal clear. The opinion of the Italian press carried no weight. The lines of communication to the top were good, as there were no sycophants to blurr them. Everybody pulled in the same direction. Enzo Ferrari's wrath could no longer be felt by anyone.

Micheal Schumacher and his allies were able to achieve what John Surtees, Niki Lauda and their allies were ultimately unable to achieve.

You are very correct in what you say, i did not think the Italians could be managed like they have been in the Schuey era................

Originally posted by FLB I think the begining of an understanding of the Schumacher era at Ferrari can come from a Patrick Head quote after Enzo Ferrari died, as reported by Nigel Roebuck (IIRC) :

'But now, Ferrari will be managed!'

To me, what has been acheived at Ferrari during the 1996-2006 period is exactly that, intelligent management. For once, there were no (internal) politics. The drivers' roles were crystal clear. The opinion of the Italian press carried no weight. The lines of communication to the top were good, as there were no sycophants to blurr them. Everybody pulled in the same direction. Enzo Ferrari's wrath could no longer be felt by anyone.

Micheal Schumacher and his allies were able to achieve what John Surtees, Niki Lauda and their allies were ultimately unable to achieve.

Yes, but they should have changed the name of the business too. That is not a good description of Ferrari ;)

Originally posted by FLB I think the begining of an understanding of the Schumacher era at Ferrari can come from a Patrick Head quote after Enzo Ferrari died, as reported by Nigel Roebuck (IIRC) :

'But now, Ferrari will be managed!'

To me, what has been acheived at Ferrari during the 1996-2006 period is exactly that, intelligent management. For once, there were no (internal) politics. The drivers' roles were crystal clear. The opinion of the Italian press carried no weight. The lines of communication to the top were good, as there were no sycophants to blurr them. Everybody pulled in the same direction. Enzo Ferrari's wrath could no longer be felt by anyone.

Micheal Schumacher and his allies were able to achieve what John Surtees, Niki Lauda and their allies were ultimately unable to achieve.

It's going OT, but it does relate to 1997 so I am arguing it's nostalgic!

As I understood it, the Williams-McLaren collusion occured in the opening part of the race - McLaren changed their pit strategy to ensure Villeneuve was not unduly held up by them. I think Hakkinen suffered more through this collusion in terms of time, which was why Ron asked DC to let him past later on.

Once MS was out and it was clear JV was on for the title, Head gently reminded Jacques how helpful McLaren had been earlier on in the race and how it would be nice to return the favour. Villeneuve was initially ok with the suggestion, believing DC was on for the win. He was less happy when it became clear Hakkinen was going to win instead (presumably a combination of factors - I think he got on well with Coulthard, and possibly he didn't like the idea of Hakkinen becoming an F1 winner). But anyway, in the end he relented and Hakkinen won.

At least that's how I read it. Collusion? Yes, but no more so than Fontana's Ferrari powered Sauber holding up Villeneuve for an age when being lapped in the same race ;)

That's just modern F1 for you. Allegiances and politics and very little racing.

The attendance has been dying everywhere because F1 is simply unaffordable, but the TV ratings are still resolute, and even climing in places like Spain and Poland, big surprise there. It will be interesting to see how much Germany sags out. Interest took a dive as well as attendance, when Schumacher broke his leg and only sat out a few races.

If Bernie's smart he'll have a word with Theissen and have Vettel promoted at Heidfeld's expense and do it all again.

Originally posted by petefenelon Schumacher might be part of history, but I just don't see him, a couple of dozen or so sublime drives apart, as ever being part of "nostalgia". Nostalgia is about characters, and for me Michael Schumacher personifies the current corporate, clean-cut, charisma-free F1, the F1 that's a battle between multinational corporations.

I neither like nor dislike the guy. I admire his ability to drive "to order" to carry out Brawn's strategies; I think he's a true Regenmeister and you have to be good to be one; but I think he's cheapened his reputation by far too many dodgy moves on track, by taking advantage of team orders too many times, and by being with teams that pulled far too many dubious tricks off-track.

Yes, he's one of the all-time greats by any statistical measure you care to use; no, he's not someone who fits any romantic vision of the sport.

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps Also, I have to take exception to this statement: "Fangio was always in the right equipment, too."

Okay - with the exception of 52/53, chunks of which he missed after his neck-breaking accident at Monza. I wasn't trying to take anything away from him, he and Clark are the two greatest for me. I'd just had the impression that his run from 54-57 came in what were either the best cars, or ones very close to it.

Originally posted by Twin Window All the locals could talk about in Spa last year was that the Germans had stopped coming. And then there's the part-empty grandstands at Hockenheim the last couple of years...

Given the event that was last Sunday's Italian GP, I was surprised to see one of the grandstands only about half full. It was the infield one just before the first chicane. From the shots I saw on tv, the pitlane end of the stand looked completely empty.

It's going OT, but it does relate to 1997 so I am arguing it's nostalgic!

You know - there is a forum called the NOSTALGIA forum... perhaps you should post your thoughts there...

Quite what the cut-off point for "nostalgia" should be, I'm not sure, but would think if the discussion involves a current F1 driver then there is a case for it being in this forum.

Given the direction that this thread is headed in, perhaps it is becoming very apparent that the defintion of what is "nostalgia" and what falls within the general scope of TNF is going to begin to bend and flex in the coming months. Two of the quotations from above are from the RC. There are many to whom 1997 is not only "nostalgia," but absolutely pre-historic. We have a entire generation of folks who cannot recall Michael Schumacher NOT being a part of the racing scene. His tenure has spanned the development and refinement of the internet racing forum.

With Schumacher departing the scene, there will doubtless be many who will begin becoming misty-eyed "nostalgics" and begin to move their interests more and more in this direction. Indeed, I see that day already dawning upon this forum.

I always avoided truly defining what "nostalgia" is/was -- and, for The Record, I always disliked the term with a passion and have long wished that we had named something else -- for the simple reason that doing such a thing was at odds with the wishes who owned the shop.

I don't think 1997 is remotely within the realm of what I would term as "nostalgia." However, to someone only 25 or 30 years old, it is nostalgia. What is going to prevent the Nineties from becoming one of the staples of discussion here in the coming months? Not much that I can think of, to be honest. Oh, it will take a year or two, but it will happen. And, like kudzu, once it begins to put roots down, it will ever leave.

Naturally, this not necessarily all bad. Perhaps some will take an interest in other eras and even become curious about series other than formula one.

It will be interesting to see how this goes, this unanticipated consequence of an action.

Okay - with the exception of 52/53, chunks of which he missed after his neck-breaking accident at Monza. I wasn't trying to take anything away from him, he and Clark are the two greatest for me. I'd just had the impression that his run from 54-57 came in what were either the best cars, or ones very close to it.

The latter is perhaps the more accurate statement. Personally, I don't think that the Lancia D50 in 1956 guise was necessarily "better" than the 250F, the cars being fairly even ofr the most part. Had Fangio driven for Officine Alfieri Maserati in 1956, I think it would have been very likely that he could have taken another championship.

Keep in mind that, since apparently few do, that the teams came to Fangio and not the other way around.

Hopefully the fact that for most members, I expect [hope] the nineties are - as you feel - way too recent to evoke nostalgia.

It is quite possible that the membership will change with the departure of Schumacher since some will shift to other places to discuss the focus of their attention. If he is not racing, the thinking will go, he must therefore be "nostalgia" and fair game for TNF. This will become RC Junior to an extent. Not sure if this is a fight that can be fought with any expectations of winning. I think that most who have been here for some time will slip away and others will storm off, but it will be a very, very different TNF (even from today much less 1999) on its 10th anniversary -- assuming that it survives that long.

I think that most who have been here for some time will slip away and others will storm off, but it will be a very, very different TNF (even from today much less 1999) on its 10th anniversary -- assuming that it survives that long.

God, you're a pessimist, aren't you? What is this place - Brooklands? The right crowd (i.e. long serving TNF members) and no crowding (i.e. any of those nasty RC interlopers)?

I wish I'd never started this now, and if Twinny wants to close this thread, he's welcome to as far as I'm concerned.

Don, I think this thread so far is proving to be quite useful/succesful. IMHO it wouldn't be a failure if it provided some prespecive-cum-historical insight in the man and 'his era'. If it provided some level-headed view of those.

And it should be mentioned that I've done a lot of surfing in my time, and let it be noted that among all the internet dwellers I've encountered, TNF-ers in general seem to be the the most level headed and the most sensible folk.

On a personal note, I'm a bit outside Your 20-30 y.o. group (being 35), but to me the nostalgia is sitting in front of B/W TV with Pa Wolf, waiting for 197x Monaco GP to start (another thing is that watching GPs wasn't included in my allowed TV time- which was 30mins a day, IIRC, so if I wanted to watch a movie, I'd have to forgo 2 days 'TV rations').

Don- Damon Hill is 'long' gone, and Hakkinen too, and they get but brief mention here. I have a feeling even Prost and Senna times aren't 'over-represented', not in the extent one would expect... I do think Your worries are a bit exaggerated, esp. since children of 'Schumacher era' will suffer withdrawal symptoms for a very short time and head back to current state of affairs- drivers quit, fans might loose interest, but it's a rare occurence.

Originally posted by Twin Window Hopefully the fact that for most members, I expect [hope] the nineties are - as you feel - way too recent to evoke nostalgia.

Agreed. I also think people will always feel most nostalgic about the era when motor racing first 'dug its claws in', and that's unlikely to be within the past 15 years for the majority of members here.

I'm 29, and the mid-to-late 80s have that hold over me, that being the time when my passion for it started. Grand Prix at Brands Hatch, Jaguar vs Mercedes vs Porsche at Le Mans, spectating at the 'old' Silverstone, Ferrari meaning Enzo, Berger and V12s. Magic.

That said, given the choice, I'd have preferred to be an impressionable youngster in the late sixties…

Originally posted by ian senior God, you're a pessimist, aren't you? What is this place - Brooklands? The right crowd (i.e. long serving TNF members) and no crowding (i.e. any of those nasty RC interlopers)?

Agreed. I also think people will always feel most nostalgic about the era when motor racing first 'dug its claws in', and that's unlikely to be within the past 15 years for the majority of members here.

I'm 29, and the mid-to-late 80s have that hold over me, that being the time when my passion for it started. Grand Prix at Brands Hatch, Jaguar vs Mercedes vs Porsche at Le Mans, spectating at the 'old' Silverstone, Ferrari meaning Enzo, Berger and V12s. Magic.

That said, given the choice, I'd have preferred to be an impressionable youngster in the late sixties…

Interesting, I'm 38 and over the years the era that has come to really fascinate me is pretty much the one that was ending even as I was becoming aware of the sport. The later 70s and 80s still exert some kind of pull (particularly when considering privateers, sports cars etc), but nothing like the era roughly defined by the start of the 2.5l F1 and the retirement of JYS...

Originally posted by James Page I'm 29, and the mid-to-late 80s have that hold over me, that being the time when my passion for it started. Grand Prix at Brands Hatch, Jaguar vs Mercedes vs Porsche at Le Mans, spectating at the 'old' Silverstone, Ferrari meaning Enzo, Berger and V12s. Magic.

Similar with me, but that was just after I got really interested (I remember Monaco 78 and Villeneuve at Zandvoort as an ankle-biter) - starting 1981.

Originally posted by James Page Agreed. I also think people will always feel most nostalgic about the era when motor racing first 'dug its claws in'

I am a recovering Mansellholic and was dry for ten years. I had been on a Montoya and Villeneuve substitute based treatment programme, but I recently fell off the wagon with the creation of the Grand Prix Masters. Unfortunately the outlook isn't good, the Villeneuve treatment wasn't as effective as it used to be and now my supply as dried up anyway, and Montoya is on backorder.

Trawling through the LAT archives for a steering wheel photo of every Schumacher race car 91-06 sure leaves me nostalgic for mid-90s F1 where they didnt have more features than my phone on the steering wheel.

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld Trawling through the LAT archives for a steering wheel photo of every Schumacher race car 91-06 sure leaves me nostalgic for mid-90s F1 where they didnt have more features than my phone on the steering wheel.

Have you got one of the 93 Benetton with a Casio digital watch stuck on the wheel? Even at the time I first saw it I found that decidely low tech!

The in-car footage of Fangio lapping the Modena Autodromo is pretty neat stuff. I had the pleasure of following a gorgeous 250F for a few laps around Watkins Glen last week. I felt like I was in dream. I had to force myself to watch the track, not the car.

Hey, it is not age -- which so many of you are so damnedly hung up on for some reason -- that makes a difference, but attitude. Being old or young is irrelevant when it comes to sorting through the mysteries we often face when dealing with history. While a teenager I was very much smitten with the racing from earlier decades as well as the one I was in. This forum is pretty much like the history department in a college in the sense of what people bring to the table and what is discussed. There are those in 101 or 401 classes and then there are those on the faculty. What is often -- or should be -- the focus here is context. This is not a political science department whose attentions are devoted largely to the Here & Now and the generation of data from which the statistics derived are the topic of many discussions. Using our analogy, that is the role of the RC.

It is generally, from my experience, very difficult to develop a clear idea of the context surrounding certain events with any level of clarity if you are closer than 25 or 30 years from the the period being considered.

It is not very important where people come from, it what they do while here. I was quite serious when I said that this was meant to be a refuge from the RC-types of fora. This forum was created out the conflicts that often arose from those with varying ideas and viewpoints on the old RC. This was initially intended to be, for lack of a better phrase, a "kinder, gentler" place. It should not be a just another no-man's land for those spoiling for a verbal free-for-all.

I utterly detest and hate the title of this forum, "The Nostalgia Forum," and have always regretted not having a better title at hand. This was never intended to be a place to wallow in nostalgia, but to be more akin to a history department, an analogy that I have come to like when I think of this place.

Just as college is not for everyone, neither is this forum.

So, if some wish to consider me an asshole for pointing that out, well, so be it. I am sure I will get over it.

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps It is generally, from my experience, very difficult to develop a clear idea of the context surrounding certain events with any level of clarity if you are closer than 25 or 30 years from the the period being considered.

My American History professor in University did not even want to discuss Watergate, let alone analyse it. To him, it was still news. Any event less than 30 years from its happeing was still news. I had to argue with him because I wanted to write my end of term paper on the Apollo program. He let me do it, as long as I didn't go beyond July 20th, 1969.